Court Report on a Criminal Case: Possession of Illegal Firearm

Read a detailed court report on a criminal case involving the possession of an illegal firearm. Learn about the material facts, legal issues, main arguments, and the judge's determination. Explore the relevant statutory provisions and the concluding remarks of the case.

LAW

TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION...........................................................................................................................3
MAIN BODY..................................................................................................................................3
Material Facts..............................................................................................................................3
Legal Issues.................................................................................................................................4
Main Arguments..........................................................................................................................5
Magistrate/ Judge’s Determination, Sentence Of Judgement......................................................6
Relevant Statutory Provisions......................................................................................................7
CONCLUDING REMARKS...........................................................................................................7
REFERENCES................................................................................................................................8

INTRODUCTION
The case that will be discussed here was broadcasted live from the Australian courts on
ABC television where the proceeding of the case and the quest to finding truth has been
illustrated. The defendant or accused Mr. Jason Courtney fought with the prosecution or crown
Mr. Paul Magyar for the claim by the victim that the defendant poised a gun at him and
threatened him on 19May, 2006 at Caledonian Hotel in Singleton (Barati and Adams, 2019). The
proceedings of the case and the decision taken will be illustrated in the following court report.
MAIN BODY
Material Facts
The key material facts of this case were that the entire case revolved around the incidents
that happened on the 19th May, 2006 in the Caledonian Hotel in Singleton. The accused was Mr.
Jason Courtney and the victim was Mr. Paul Magyar. The major issue here was that in the
bathroom cubicle of the hotel, Mr. Courtney was said to have threatened Mr. Magyar with a
pistol and was said to have discharged it as well. On the other hand he accused pleaded that he
was not guilty and did not have any such pistol or weapon in his possession. On the contrary, it
was claimed by him that he was being stolen from by the victim Mr. Magyar and the key witness
on the case i.e. Craig Gladstone. He firmly stated that he was the victim in the current case and
was being falsely accused. The entire proceedings took place for over a year where the facts
related to the possession o the gun, the firing and the intent to intimidate were the three major
crimes that Mr. Courtney was accused with (Kennedy and Warren, 2018). The judge who
undertook the proceedings was Judge Mark Marien at the Downing Centre. The case of the
defence was represented by Peter Lavac and the case of prosecution i.e. the crown here in this
case was represented by Tim Macintosh. The defence worked with the aim of proving that their
client i.e. Mr Courtney was actually held victim in the washroom cubicle of Caledonian hotel by
the alleged prosecutor i.e. Paul Magyar and the key witness i.e. Mr. Craig Gladstone where they
tried to steal the heavy gild chain that the defendant was wearing at the crime scene and the
prosecution was tallied forward by Mr. Magyar claiming that Mr. Courtney put up a pistol on his
head and threatened to shoot him. These are the material facts on the basis of which the major
portion of case was fought.
There were various startling facts and evidences that were presented by the prosecution but
the defence barrister was extremely skilled with his words and this mainly helped them in
3

creating ambiguity amongst the jury and to discredit the arguments that have been presented by
the prosecution (Gray, 2017). The testimony of the key witness was the major point in the case
and additionally, there were specialists on firearms who gave their opinion regarding the
evidences that were collected from the scene of crime. The case also portrayed Voir Dire i.e. a
trial within a rial which was mainly fought in order to select the relevant and admissible evidence
only that could be presented before the Jury amongst all the available evidences. The case was
fought on the basis of the evidence available and the common judgment where the Judge Marien
repeatedly emphasised that in a criminal case, the accused stands innocent only till the
prosecution proves the accused to be guilty beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore, this summarizes
the key facts relevant to the case that was presented.
Legal Issues
The legal issues that were mainly highlighted by the Judge Marien at the starting of the case
were mainly in three aspects. The accused Mr. Courtney was majorly charged with three major
crimes that he inflicted i.e.:
 The charge of possession of an illegal weapon i.e. a unique 25 calibre semi automatic pistol
without any authorisation. This was the critical point where the gun was not found in
possession of the accused form the crime scene but he was charged with its possession
during the incident that was taking place. The prosecution repeatedly stated that the gun was
in possession of Mr. Courtney and the witness Mr. Gladstone also stated that he later took
the pistol and hid it behind the bar cartons in the bar area (Daly and et.al., 2020). However,
the defence refuted the claim stating that the first step of the victim should have been to
ensure the safety of the wife who was also present at the crime scene and then go directly to
police rather than running away. His running away shows that the prosecution party is guilty
here.
 The intention to use such unauthorized firearm with the intention to intimidate the victim i.e.
Mr. Paul Magyar. This was the second accusation where it was claimed that the accused
intended to harm the victim by pointing it on him with the intention to shoot. The
prosecution further strengthened the argument by proving that the fingerprint on the gun was
solely of Mr. Courtney but the defence again outwitted the accusation by stating that the
fingerprints were due to the blood of their client and the blood came because the accused
4

was pistol whipped by the victim and the key witness collectively (Willoughby and et.al.,
2020).
 The last count or accusation that was charged was that the accused discharged such illegal
firearm that was in possession. The hole in the ceiling of the bathroom cubicle where the
incident took place and the evidence given by Senior Constable McSpadden showed that the
firearm had been fired with the intention to shoot but due to some manual interruption, the
bullet richotted off to the ceiling (Watson, 2019). This was again crossed off by the defence
by stating that if a bullet was fired than where is the actual bullet and the empty barrel is no
conclusive evidence that the bullet was fired in that cubicle only. It might have been fired a
day aerialist or a week earlier.
Therefore, these three were the major legal issues that were considered in the present case.
Main Arguments
The main arguments that were presented in the case by the defence and the prosecution can
be illustrated as follows:
 When the prosecution stated that Mr. Magyar and the key witness were being harassed, they
quickly over powered the accused Mr. Courtney and fled from the scene. In its counter the
major argument that defence provided was that why Mr. Magyar refused to take his wife
with him who was present at the crime scene and why instead of going directly to the police,
the victim decided to jeopardise the lives of all the remaining people who were present at
Caledonian hotel at that time (Hughes, Chalmers and Bright, 2020). Additionally the claim
of the defence that accused was in possession of the pistol was also rendered as unreliable
by the argument that when Mr. Gladstone found the gun why it was not disposed off safely
to the police but left carelessly at the scene of crime.
 Next major argument was the admissibility of the evidence of a photo of the accused holding
firearm previously five years back. The Judge Marien had already earlier stated that this
could not be presented as the evidence before the jury. However, when the confession of the
accused was heard, he clearly stated that he had no prior knowledge or experience in
handling the firearms and had not held it even once. Now the correct step here would have
been by the prosecution to immediately present the evidence while accused was still in the
confession box but what they did was to send the jury out and the accuser’s confession was
over (Santaella-Tenorio and et.al., 2016). Then the prosecution presented before the judge
5

the evidence but it was later disregarded because of the inability to force the accused to
again give his witness.
 The third major argument was that the prosecution was proving the tendency evidence to be
carried in the court before the judge where Nigel Clydesdale was invited. He stated that
before the events of that night occurred on 19th May, 2006, the accused came to the Kodak
shop where he was also present in order to pick up his girlfriend working there. He stated
that the accused entered into a fight with him and specifically said that he possessed a
weapon and would shoot him. However the defence presented his girlfriend and when
interviewed separately, she denied that the accused never mentioned any firearms or did not
seem to have a pistol in his possession (McPhedran, 2018). Further, she also denied that
there was no such statement that was made by the accused that he will shoot or kill.
 The last major argument was made at the time of proving that the gun contained fingerprints
of accused only. Defence stated that these fingerprints were due to the blood of the accused
and this further strengthened the claim of the accused that he was pistol whipped by the
victim.
Therefore, the arguments that were presented by the defence and prosecution were very
strong and counter active but the defence was able to nullify each claim.
Magistrate/ Judge’s Determination, Sentence Of Judgement
Accused Mr. Courtney was facing the trial for three counts facing 14 years behind the bars.
The jury discussed the issue for a week where they were unable to decide unanimously what the
decision should be taken in the present case. There were many heated discussions and quarrels
amongst the jury members where they were in constant argument. After several notes and calls t
the Judge, the Jury was able to decide unanimously only on one out of the three accusations that
were made on Mr. Courtney. Regarding the third count that the accused discharged the illegal
firearm that was in his possession, the jury found that the accused was not guilty of this count.
This therefore, reduced the count of accusations to only two and the Judge Marien decisively
resolved jury of their duties when they were not able to repeatedly decide unanimously on the
remaining two claims. This was the first win for Mr. Courtney and the defence.
However, 9 weeks later, the case was sent for retrial by the prosecution where they found
that the remaining two claims were adequate enough to reopen the case. However, prosecution
was ready to compromise and settle where they gave the option to accused, where he could be
6

declared as not guilty under the count two i.e. the claim that he possessed that illegal firearm
with the intention to intimidate Mr. Magyar if he pleaded guilty to the first count that he was in
possession of an unauthorised pistol. Mr. Courtney, the accused decided to plead guilty for the
first count and got discharged from the second count. This led to the Judge Marien deciding that
the possession of an unauthorised weapon was the very serious crime and otherwise would have
resulted in the sentencing of the 14 years of jail (Lim, 2017). However, keeping in mind the 10
months 1day that accused had already spent in jail, the Judge Marien decided that 1 year 3
months extended period needed to be served therefore the total sentence becoming for 2 years
and 6 months beginning on 13 September, 2007 to 12th March, 2010.
Relevant Statutory Provisions
The major statute that was taken into consideration was that as per the Weapons Act, 1990,
the provision states that if the person is found to be in possession of an illegal weapon without
any license or authority, then he may be sentenced to minimum 14 years of jail with added
penalties in different scenarios (Spapens and et.al., 2018). This was the only major statutory
provision that was taken into consideration in the case.
CONCLUDING REMARKS
The court report above concludes that the case was fought very intelligently by the defence
barrister where he was able to reduce the punishment of the accused critically and could also
prove his innocence in two out of three counts that were laid. The prosecution despite having
some strong points of evidence failed to use them intelligently which made them loose the case
on two counts. Regarding the truth, this case concluded that it is indecisive and only the parties
that were present there know the exact truth.
7

REFERENCES
Books and Journals
Barati, M. and Adams, S., 2019. Enhanced penalties for carrying firearms illegally and their
effects on crime. Economic Analysis and Policy. 63. pp.207-219.
Daly, A., and et.al., 2020. 3D printing, policing and crime. Policing and Society, pp.1-15.
Gray, A.D., 2017. The presumption of innocence under attack. New Criminal Law Review: An
International and Interdisciplinary Journal. 20(4). pp.569-615.
Hughes, C.E., Chalmers, J. and Bright, D.A., 2020. Exploring interrelationships between high-
level drug trafficking and other serious and organised crime: an Australian study. Global
Crime. 21(1). pp.28-50.
Kennedy, S. and Warren, I., 2018. Southern Criminology, Law and the ‘Right’to Consular
Notification in Australia, New Zealand and the United States. International Journal for
Crime, Justice and Social Democracy. 7(4). p.100.
Lim, A., 2017. Gangs and Guns: Is a Blanket Firearms Ban on Gangs Justified?.
McPhedran, S., 2018. An evaluation of the impacts of changing firearms legislation on
Australian female firearm homicide victimization rates. Violence against women. 24(7).
pp.798-815.
Santaella-Tenorio, J., and et.al., 2016. What do we know about the association between firearm
legislation and firearm-related injuries?. Epidemiologic reviews. 38(1). pp.140-157.
Spapens, T., and et.al., 2018. Green crimes and dirty money. Routledge.
Watson, D., 2019. Alternative positions on crime and criminality: An examination of perspective
from the margins. International Journal for Crime, Justice and Social Democracy. 8(2).
p.135.
Willoughby, M., and et.al., 2020. Violence-related deaths among people released from prison: a
data linkage study. Journal of interpersonal violence, p.0886260520905546.
Online
8

9